If you had to choose a digital camera

[ElectricBarbarella]

Which would it be?

I am looking at two, however I am VERY open to alternatives:

Camera 1

Camera 2

Camera 3
(walmart.. particularly I'd choose the flash and the first zoom lens as options)

Now these aren't my only choices. I only chose this site because of the ability to pay in installments (yeah, I know, I know!). I particularly like #2's ability to have rechargeable batteries.

I would like this for my art, so it needs to have:

GREAT zoom abilities
manual and auto abilities (but for an amateur, the ability to learn from the manual easily enough)
great quality at high MP rate
rechargeable batteries (lithium?)
great built in flash
at least 10mp

I think you get what I am looking for. Any recommendations? Give it to me in English and preferably options under $600 (lower if I can get it) or else I can't convince DH to buy this.

[Jay Tea]

I'd definitely go for the DSLR - it's scary what you get for your money these days and you'll have all the slr advantages and you can purchase any lens you want, from fisheye to walloping great telephoto lenses - the choice is yours.

[ElectricBarbarella]

Which one of those three is the exact DSLR? They say SLR like quality...but what does that mean?

[Gibbie]

I've got the Canon PowerShot SD790 IS and am ridiculously happy with it. Pocket sized, great optics, 3X optical zoom, 12x digital, great macro capabilities. I can choose between fully automatic and fully manual and anywhere in between. It has a rechargeable battery but I think that's pretty standard these days. The only down side to that is that it's proprietary, so you need to travel with your charger cause there's no popping in to the Kwiki Mart to get some AAs for it.

You've got both point and shoots and a digital slr in your list, those are two different beasts. If you're just starting out you might want to save your money and get the poitn and shoot. The SLR will take great photos but it's more work and you'll spend more overall, because lenses aren't cheap. I really really want one, but can't quite justify the expense yet.

Gibbie

the Walmart is the SLR. And honestly, if you can't tell the difference looking at the pictures you probably don't want it yet. An SLR allows you to look through the actual lens of the camera as you take the photo. The lens of the camera is removable and replaceable so that you can get different lenses for different types of photos. They generally run in the 200 - 300 (at least!) a piece. It's really the tool of the professional photographer (or serious hobbiest). You can get great quality photos from a regular point and shoot camera.

[Seaboe Muffinchucker]

Okay, I'm going to piggyback onto this thread. If you were looking for a digital SLR, and already had umpteen hundred (possibly more than a thousand) dollars worth of lenses, what (other than lens interchangeability) would you look for in a camera?

Seaboe

[AnglRdr]

The Olympus is DSLR. DSLR means digital single lens reflex. SLR are your old fashioned 35mm cameras. DSLR are their digital cousins.

And for the price, it is a far better investment than the other two. In fact, the other two are pretty overpriced.

[ElectricBarbarella]

I have one of those Gibbie and I also have a Kodak 10x EasyShare Z710 (which is a point n shoot, but functions similar to an SLR).

I want something similar to that only better. Better lenses, better zoom, etc...

[ElectricBarbarella]

Originally Posted by AnglRdr

The Olympus is DSLR. DSLR means digital single lens reflex. SLR are your old fashioned 35mm cameras. DSLR are their digital cousins.

And for the price, it is a far better investment than the other two. In fact, the other two are pretty overpriced.

That's the one from walmart that you can customize. Okay... that is doable if I can convince him of the price.

Gibbie, I know the difference but don't actually KNOW it. I know what I want and want it to do and just get confused at all the stuff one can do with these things. Believe me, I'm ready, which is why I am asking.

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker

Okay, I'm going to piggyback onto this thread. If you were looking for a digital SLR, and already had umpteen hundred (possibly more than a thousand) dollars worth of lenses, what (other than lens interchangeability) would you look for in a camera?

Seaboe

I think lens interchangeability would be the primary concern, at least for me. After that would be the photo quality for what I could afford. But it would likely be the cheapest camera I could find that my lenses would fit.

[chocolate kisses]

Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella

Now these aren't my only choices. I only chose this site because of the ability to pay in installments (yeah, I know, I know!).

Check out Bill-me-later. I use it whenever ordering from Walmart's website. It's not a credit card, you can't use it in a store, it's only for particular websites that accept it. But they ship and send you the bill and you can pay it all (later, when the bill comes due) or installments (like a credit card).

[Gibbie]

Originally Posted by ElectricBarbarella

I have one of those Gibbie and I also have a Kodak 10x EasyShare Z710 (which is a point n shoot, but functions similar to an SLR).

I want something similar to that only better. Better lenses, better zoom, etc...

Ok then the question is what is it that you need the camera for and what do you want it to do? That's key to knowing where to invest your money. Depending on how old your camera is, getting just a newer version of the same thing can make a huge difference in quality. I had purchased an earlier version of the Canon DigitalElph and 9 months later it was stolen. I replaced it with the next version up and had a huge leap in quality and the actual cost was a little less.

Gibbie

[Eddylizard]

I'd second the DSLR suggestion. Even if you think you might never want another lens, circumstances change and you are keeping your options open. I'm drooling over a couple of new lenses now - I'm debating whether to get one or both.

I read somewhere that there is really no advantage with going much over 12 megapixels. Darned if I can find the cite.

For the record, I have a Sony Alpha 300. I think it's a nice piece of kit and very versatile. Lots of automatic options for various situations (portrait/landscape/macro and whatever) but more importantly to me, full or partial manual control. It set me back £350 ish - whatever that is in your money.

Of course the hot shoe mounted flashgun for ir costs a small fortune (I hate Sony, I think I've mentioned that) and the hotshoe has a unique fitting that will only accept the Sony flashgun - but I've never been a big fan of camera mounted flash photography, and when I need it, the camera mounted one gives acceptible results. Frankly I'd rather crank up the ISO equivalence and accept the signal noise. It seems to work, and the "Steady Shot" thing can give results in low light that would be unthinkable with wet film.

[Eddylizard]

Originally Posted by Seaboe Muffinchucker

Okay, I'm going to piggyback onto this thread. If you were looking for a digital SLR, and already had umpteen hundred (possibly more than a thousand) dollars worth of lenses, what (other than lens interchangeability) would you look for in a camera?

Seaboe

I don't know if thats a general question, but for me? With unlimited money I would get a 50mm equivalent fixed focus f2.8 macro lens (silly money) hey I like to photograph plants everyone has their thing, the 50mm 2.8 can also fill in as a regular 50mm, and a 400-600mm equivalent zoom or telephoto lens. At which stage the minimum aperture becomes slightly irrelevant - need light. More light.

ETA I misunderstood. Okay the one thing I would look for is the ability to set the camera to fully manual. The camera makes no decisions for me. I decide the exposure level (probably with a grey card and a light meter) I set the thing myself, and I shoot.

I forgot to mention that with my A300, what bugs me is there is no focus aid in the viewfinder.

ETA Also 'Stop Down" focusing through the viewfinder would be nice.

[ElectricBarbarella]

Originally Posted by Gibbie

Ok then the question is what is it that you need the camera for and what do you want it to do? That's key to knowing where to invest your money. Depending on how old your camera is, getting just a newer version of the same thing can make a huge difference in quality. I had purchased an earlier version of the Canon DigitalElph and 9 months later it was stolen. I replaced it with the next version up and had a huge leap in quality and the actual cost was a little less.

Gibbie

I need it for photographing things that will become digitally manipulated into art. My art site: www.creativewonders.homeschooljournal.net shows this. Basically, I will take the pictures, edit/manipulate them in my photoshop programs, then digitally hand draw or manipulate them in my other programs. So basically, quality of the original photo is a must.

I bought the kodak on Ebay last year for $150. If there is a newer version of it that gives me better quality, great. But it is fairly limited in flash use and lens use (single lens, not detachable). It's also limited in close-up shots and even though I am getting better at using the manual settings, those are still fairly limited in quality if the location settings are not almost near perfect (good sunlight, etc...). So I would need something that can work with good to fair location settings and not where I have to worry about placing the subject in an area I or they might not want to be, just to get "the right light".

[Gibbie]

You've noticed of course on the WalMart one that the flash adds 200.00 to the price and the better zoom lenses add 300.00? That 300.00 camera quickly becomes a 900.00 one. Which is why I'm going against the flow here, DSLRs are serious money and really for the serious hobbiest or professional. I was having a chat with a friend of mine who is a pro who says for the amateur the point and shoots have come so far that you really can do just about anything you ever need to do with one. Honestly, if you want one to learn on I'd check pawn shops and such things for a deal.

Gibbie

ETA: I get great macro shots (close ups) on my Canon. I can also take really large photos which can give me a decent resolution. It does not however handle raw formats such as .tif, so that might be a factor pushing you toward an SLR (but I don't know if the WalMart handles large format) depending on the resolution you need in PS.

ETAA: The DSLR linked shoots the same size max as mine does, so you're not gaining anything format wise on this model, even in RAW. Now, I canceled my hair appt. today so that I could work on my school project that's due on Monday and sitting here gabbing about cameras isnt' getting that done.

[CSGirl]

Originally Posted by Gibbie

You've noticed of course on the WalMart one that the flash adds 200.00 to the price and the better zoom lenses add 300.00? That 300.00 camera quickly becomes a 900.00 one. Which is why I'm going against the flow here, DSLRs are serious money and really for the serious hobbiest or professional. I was having a chat with a friend of mine who is a pro who says for the amateur the point and shoots have come so far that you really can do just about anything you ever need to do with one. Honestly, if you want one to learn on I'd check pawn shops and such things for a deal.

Gibbie

Yeah, it comes down to price. If you are willing and able to spend the money, go for it.

I have a Nikon Coolpix. It's point and shoot, but it's 10 megapixels, but it also has an awesome macro setting. That would probably be what you need to get the "close up" shots, EB. I have really close up pics from my fish tanks that are nice and sharp, and that's with some tricky lighting.

Check out the coolpix- make sure it has macro because IIRC, the lower end ones don't. I'll try to find the one I have.

[AnglRdr]

A Canon PowerShot S3 IS took the photos on Li'l's deviantart page. It is very versatile, but is not a DSLR.

It has served our needs well, and the price was very reasonable. [ETA: most certainly not the price shown on the linked page, by the way; not even half that.]

[Gibbie]

FWIW, my photog friend advised that as far as DSLRs go, Nikons had by the best optics around and she'd never go back to anything else. Haven't priced them though.

Gibbie

[Jay Tea]

Here's some camera porn while we're at it.

'Only' $9995? I'll take two...

[AnglRdr]

Originally Posted by Jay Tea

Here's some camera porn while we're at it.

'Only' $9995? I'll take two...

But it is

exceptionally affordable

!!